Romer Butuyan 
DAPAT lang ipagpatuloy ng House Committee on Justice ang pagtalakay sa mga impeachment complaint na isinampa laban kay Vice President Sara Duterte, lalo pa’t may basbas galing sa Korte Suprema.
“The message here is that the Supreme Court does not want at this stage to intervene in the proceedings in the House of Representatives at a committee level, and so it is saying that the House committee can proceed with its scheduled hearings,” wika ni former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna sa panayam sa programang ANC Headstart.
Para kay Azcuna, ang kabiguan ng kampo ng VP Sara makakuha ng temporary restraining order (TRO) ay isang malinaw na mensahe ng kataas-taasang hukuman sa pangalawang pangulo.
Naniniwala rin ang retiradong mahistrado na ang hakbang ng Justice committee ay alinsunod sa mandatong nakasaad sa 1987 Constitution – ang kapangyarihan himayin ang reklamo laban sa mga impeachable officials ng gobyerno.
“The purpose of impeachment is to preserve the constitutional order in order that our officials will be reminded of their duty to render accounting to our people at all times,” aniya.
Punto rin ni Azcuna, ang gagawing impeachment process ay kinabibilangan ng pagkuha ng official copies bilang mga ebidensya sa impeachment complaints, at iba pang mga dokumento at direktang testimonya ng mga testigo.
“Because the proceedings have not yet reached the trial stage, the threshold for establishing probable cause to impeach is very low and relatively easy to meet,” ayon pa kay Azcuna.
“So there’s no need for full-blown cross-examination and investigation, simply to gather. In other words, the definition of probable cause is that a person of reasonable mind will think that there is probability, reason to believe that the offense was probably committed,” dugtong niya.
Sa usapin ng unexplained wealth, naniniwala si Azcuna na tanging ang SALN sandigan at batayan — “SALN could, on its own, be enough to establish probable cause.”
“If it is very big and beyond her lawful means of income, it could be a basis for determining probable cause,” aniya pa.
“When you deny but your denial is partially an admission, and that can be used against you. So it will, in effect, be up to you to prove your version, but admit that you’ve made the statement that can be used as a ground for probable cause, in my opinion,” punto pa ni Azcuna.
Sinalag naman ng former SC justice ang akusasyon ng kampo ng bise-presidente na ‘bias’ ang mga kongresista sa kinakaharap na impeachment raps at sinabing “that bias really refers to judges — a role the lower chamber does not hold.”
Kaya paalala niya sa impeachment prosecutors, ang trabaho ng mga ito ay bumuo ng matibay na kaso at hindi ang maglabas ng hatol laban sa akusado
“The role of the House is prosecution. So you cannot say that they’re biased just because they are prosecution-oriented. That’s their role. An impeachment is not a judgment. It’s a charge. It’s a complaint against a person,” paliwanag ni Azcuna.
“The House must be careful not to encroach on the Senate’s role as trial court, (and) the committee must stay focused on gathering evidence and establishing probable cause, not determining guilt.”
